Block user

Supported Regions

Squamish via SORCA

Recent

Added 3 photos to Buysell
Apr 30, 2024 at 15:13
Apr 30, 2024
Selling
Apr 30, 2024 at 15:02
Apr 30, 2024

Stumpjumper Evo Carbon LT S3 (large)

$2950 CAD
This is a 2020 Stumpjumper Evo carbon running long travel at 170mm/153mm. The suspension bump comes from a 170mm air spring in the fork, and the combination of the Cascade Components link kit and shock stroke increase to 52.5mm (from 50mm) giving it 153mm in the rear. When I changed the stroke length I wanted to keep the option to run low mode so stuck at 52.5, but you could probably bump that to 55mm at the next service interval and push up towards 160mm in the rear. The Cascade Component link is absolutely essential for this model of the Evo, and completely transforms the bike. Before the link I had an air shock with max spacers and still had to choose between traction or support, with the link I have been able to run coil and things felt great almost right away. See attached image or the following link for more info: https://cascadecomponents.eu/products/stumpjumper-lt-link-2018-2020 Suspension has had both major and minor services done on manufacturers recommended service intervals (I track my hours and services in an app). Major services were mostly done at Corsa, minor services I do at home. Bike will come two bottle of fork oil (Fox 5wt and 20wt) needed for lowers services, both half full from use on this bike. Size S3 puts it at 475mm reach, 623mm stack, 443mm chainstays, and 450mm seat tube. I'm running it in high mode with the longer fork, which puts it around 63° head angle and gets the BB up to a slightly less ground scraping level. In terms of setup I'm 5'10" and ~160lb and everything is setup really nicely for me. Bike is in generally great condition. With a combination of illness, injury, and getting obsessed with running I've only put 2,300km on it since new. There are some cosmetic scratches on the lower left fork leg, but nothing on the stanchions. The rear mech has probably the worst visual damage, but still works as it should. The pedals were recently rebuilt, but could probably use new bearings in the near future. I didn't have the right tool so just cleaned and re-greased them. Tires are both part worn, but are still fine for another summer of riding (see pics). The seatpost works, but is getting a little slow and will likely need a new cartridge by fall. There is no damage to the frame. It's raw carbon, which can sometimes look a little patchy in photos. Specifications: * Fork: Fox 36 Rhythm with 170mm air spring (150mm air spring included). De-stickered. Uncut steerer. * Shock: Fox DHX2 Factory 210x52.5 w/ 550lb spring. De-stickered. * Drivetrain: GX rear mech, NX cassette (261km), 165mm NX cranks, 28t chainring, GX chain (261km) * Pedals: HT X2. * Brakes: Code R, recently bled. 200mm both ends. * Wheels: Specialized Roval Traverse with Cushcore Pro both ends. * Tyres: Maxxis Assegai MaxGripp EXO+ and DHR2 MaxTerra EXO+. * Seatpost: X-fusion Manic 170mm with OneUp lever * Bars: Chromag FU40 cut to 760mm with Renthal Ultra Tacky push-on grips.

danprisk mattwragg's article
Apr 25, 2024 at 15:11
Apr 25, 2024
Opinion: The Fight for the Future of Our Mountains
@mattg95: Because if Matt's logic holds and ski resorts begin expanding into summer with family friendly / low skill trail networks geared towards beginners on eBikes that can end up taking over land used by mountain bikers. The vision he's painting is of summer resort biking being something quite different than what we might think of as mountain biking.
Added 3 photos to Buysell
Apr 21, 2024 at 11:16
Apr 21, 2024
Selling
Apr 21, 2024 at 11:15
Apr 21, 2024

Sunday Model D

$150 CAD
If you're looking for a cheap pump track toy for summer this is a great option! Sunday Model D in decent running shape. Wheels are true, frame is undamaged, and brake slows you down (slowly). It'll get you too and from the pumptrack fine, and whip around berms super fast. The frame has some patina to it, but it's all aesthetic only. From what I know these were a slightly longer / slacker BMX built for trails, but it still feels pretty damn pointy after coming off a 29er.

danprisk edspratt's article
Apr 11, 2024 at 13:55
Apr 11, 2024
Pinkbike's State of the Sport 2024 Public Survey Data Release
@justanotherusername: "And because it's not really relevant to my point, an instance on returning to this gives your argument the impression of being anti-trans." sigh.
danprisk edspratt's article
Apr 11, 2024 at 13:32
Apr 11, 2024
Pinkbike's State of the Sport 2024 Public Survey Data Release
@justanotherusername: well, generally when people are applying a strong negative value to the use of cis in regards to gender it's built on a pretty anti-trans position. I haven't really seen anyone make a case against the us of cis which hasn't come from a refusal of trans people as being men/women. And because it's not really relevant to my point, an instance on returning to this gives your argument the impression of being anti-trans. Anyway, isn't it just typical that you're arguing with me about survey methods without understanding what i mean by very basic concepts of survey design here! What I mean by questioning the percentage of trans respondents is that, for instance, if a trans man completed this survey he would have to choose between entering a response as either "male" or "trans-gender" because both categories apply. We have no idea which he would have chosen. So, when looking at the results we don't know how many trans respondents responded as "male" or "female", only how many chose "trans-gender". So, the true number of trans respondents could be anywhere between 0.1% (the number who selected "trans-gender") and 100% (extremely unlikely, but we just can't know based on this data). This is the core of my point. If we want to collect information on trans participation then the survey question does not do the job, and it either needs to be separated into a new question or dropped from the survey (both as per my original comment). Currently if I were analysing the data as is in regards to gender I would probably drop respondents in the "trans-gender" category and note that we cannot say anything about cis/trans distribution within the sample. This isn't about whether respondents feel included, it's about valid measurement.
danprisk edspratt's article
Apr 11, 2024 at 12:05
Apr 11, 2024
Pinkbike's State of the Sport 2024 Public Survey Data Release
@justanotherusername: I feel like you're trying to pull this into some anti-trans argument, when I'm making a point about survey methods. That 1.3% number you're quoting is not a meaningful statistic because the categories are not mutually exclusive. At best we can read the results for the trans category as a lower bound (i.e. there are not less than this many trans respondents) but we do not know anything about the upper bound because trans respondents had multiple possible responses. So your argument about it being too small a number to matter does not have data to support it. Also a bit confused about why you are opposed to the use of cis, but seem ok with the survey asking about trans identity? These things are twinned concepts, you can't have one without the other. If we want to collect meaningful information about trans respondents we are inherently also collecting information about cis respondents. As I said, sometimes surveys don't use that language because people don't understand it (and people seem to think it's value laden), but the concepts are inherent to the data.
danprisk edspratt's article
Apr 11, 2024 at 9:45
Apr 11, 2024
Pinkbike's State of the Sport 2024 Public Survey Data Release
@justanotherusername: My response was mostly about methodology. The problem is that that 1.3% number you're quoting is meaningless because we don't know how trans respondents would have answered. For all we know it could be significantly higher than that. And there is very much a reason to use the term cis if one wants to take account of trans identity in a survey. Otherwise simply drop the trans question entirely because anyone who is trans will also be able to answer one of "man / woman / nonbinary / other" and those maintain mutual exclusivity. As for the use of the term cis, this is hardly a term just for use on Twitter. It's a completely standard way of discussing gender in research. The reason cis people tend not be aware they are cis is more to do with simply not needing to know because the social world is structured in such a way that they rarely have to confront it.
danprisk edspratt's article
Apr 10, 2024 at 17:03
Apr 10, 2024
Pinkbike's State of the Sport 2024 Public Survey Data Release
From what I can see the gender question could use some tweaking for next year. The current setup breaks the requirements for mutually exclusive categories: someone who might answer trans would likely also fit into one of the other categories (man, women, or nb). As such, it's impossible to know, for instance, how a trans man would answer this survey, and the data becomes hard to interpret. Instead it might be better to split this into two questions: one that asks gender identity (man, woman, nonbinary, other) and one that asks whether the respondent is cis or trans (some surveys I've seen ask if the respondent is trans: yes/no to get around the problem that many cis people don't know they are cis). The other option is to expand the categories to include "trans woman, cis woman, trans man, cis man" (although again that hits the issue that often cis people aren't aware they are cis). Note using "other" instead of "prefer not to answer" here allows space for those who are happy to answer, but don't fit into one of the provided categories (e.g. those who are two spirit).
Load more...
You must login to Pinkbike.
Don't have an account? Sign up

Join Pinkbike  Login


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.025314
Mobile Version of Website